Skip to main content

About this Show





San Francisco, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Channel v26






San Francisco 7, Us 5, Puc 4, The City 4, Richmond 2, Kim 2, Kari 1, Campos 1, Mr. Smith 1, Jane Kim 1, Loop 1, China 1, You Look 1, Weiner 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    December 9, 2013
    2:30 - 3:01pm PST  

them on levels of service improvements on which we will have electronic mapping of their street light assets. we have not reached an agreement on that. we're also including a broadening of the 311 reported ability. we need to have visibility on the improvements that are being made. i as a manager look to the 311 system as a third party neutral on that. i think we don't have a good sense of the good improvements that pg&e has made. we don't have enough information to respond to the constituent questions we receive and finally, this funding we've been talking about throughout any presentation we've looked at establishing the left to right districts as one way of
providing the funding services in san francisco. we're also looking at the opportunity to utilizes generation bond. we have a program of improvements that we would recommended where we able to use general obligation funds to if you happened this, you know, safety service that the puc has been managing on behalf of city >> are street lights in the city 10 year capital plan? >> the street light are in the puc capital plan and in that way yes. >> okay. it seems like we as the city admiringly over the loose 6 years has become more methodical and organized around our capital needs. we've seen improvements around the parks and a whole variety of areas. it strikes three and 4 that street lights excuse me. are
such a critical part of our cities daily life. >> uh-huh. >> and that it's and they need to be priority tied in a more significant way. and so i apologize for my allergies. i hope we can move in that direction. i'm not being critical of the puc in terms of the choices i know you have to deal with a lot of capital needs but we haven't priority tied lighting needs >> thank you very much. we'll now hear from pg&e from mark and another gentleman >> good afternoon. i'm terry with pg&e i'm joined by terry
should has some information on our prevail data. i'll take boarder discussion. starting off in san francisco we recognize pg&e how important street lights are. we've made some real major changes since last year we show our commitment with the city one of the things is the development of some clear standards and expectations how lights have repaired. i've been working with staff personally to put that together and we're close to getting it wrapped up. to repair 90 percent of all simple outages within 5 days. the actual data she's about 5 days and 75 percent within thirty days that require permits
and much for comprehensive work. in turn pg&e is trying to identify places to be more efficient. we've done that in our operations. so i'm going to quickly bring terry up to show the improvements that have been made quarter by quarter and i'll talk about more broader considerations >> do you have copies of the slides by chance. >> we do. >> if not can you e-mail them to us. >> no problem. i want to talk about our street light performance response. i can tell by the data we've significantly improved after all performance in inform. in the first quarter we're in the 50 percent we put more focus and we're at an average of
repair time for 3 days. we also have we've improved our staffing we staff 7 days a week and those requests that come in as far as street light burn out. we work within the 311 system as well to, you know, process those requests and enter them into our internal system as well >> i want to give pg&e go and i've been critical but i really want to give pg&e credit they've been mrechlt the 311 system that's been helpful in the response time. >> as you look at the improvements to maintain they don't suffice we've made the
announcements we're going to make improvements those are those old series you've heard about. we 2345u7bd a $25 million promising program to replace retouch 11 thousand lights in the city in red that are being repaired now. we did our repair and replaced 80 lights. those lights are going to be replaced. so ms. hails point those are $35,000 per light. you're running brand new conduit and you're putting in brand new lights and that's expensive. in many cases it's hard to excavate so we're going to work
p with pe w. we do our own replacements. so the construction you'll have 15 more loops left >> as mentioned with year moratorium and that's when the street is being torn up four work and resacrificed this is a 5 year moratorium i don't come in 5 months later so when puc puts out the word pg&e will come in with the gas line and is that also true of street light work in terms of following the pavement you don't tear up new streets. >> yes. each project is announced you can see the timing of the work. the problem comes when we change the order of a street light repair depending on safety public inputs we might asks for
more to your memory. we're looking at reporters to 17th street and cap that's into the district 6 and then some limited work in district 8 which that doesn't have any loops. the idea is in this program all that deferred maintenance should be complete. that's the majority of the work. at $34,000 per light that's $40 million of investment by pg&e. supervisor kim's mentioned the money is there and it will be updated in the next 3 to 5 years. going back to level of service
expectations i've taken the lead and we've established what pg&e is going to do and share data and communicate with the city and the puc to make clear to resident who's responsible for what kind of work. most outages will be reward in thirty days pg&e is going to do the mapping by location so we can identify who owns what. that means the one day or two days of back and forth. the cause of the out age all those are things will be part of the data set we'll give the city to inform the city broadly and a
hour we're responding. that gives u gives you more clarity in the operational news and bring the san francisco employees out to take the of our data we see the reliability in repairs are taking longer that's because pg&e trouble men are being sent to other areas to repair damage by floods and storms and finally, the last thing is to do frequent meetings with puc and puc staff to make sure we're aligned with major initiative. are there structural communication with either party making the repair of street light it difficult if the answer is yes we're going to get together to solve those.
we weren't communicating very well and to put the people together in the field so they can hash out the issues before they become citywide issues >> where are the current soft spots. while we've made major improvements in cooperating there are things that are difficult one fact is the system we log outages. per diem has their own system for the 15 million customers we operate differently we do duplicate repairs so when an outage comes in it will go to the city and we close it in our system and 311. unfortunately, it's often down so people can't log it in it
maybe done in december 1st and it might be out until the 7 letting. it's not an issue from a data and reporting standpoint it miss categories the work that's being done >> i know last year you discussed or we discussed physical examinations database in terms of all the street light locates is that included in the database observe talking about not everybody everything was in an electronic format. >> the way it works is most of what pg&e side is on paper plat mats. it's even further complicated because the soft of different nature of the bill. the self-puc appraise
maintenance and operation services that's in the basically format there's another system being built to accommodate the lights that's for the slow movement. as i said our target is to get the work done by 2014 and to give the city a format so search for the street lights >> just in the big picture does it make sense to have two entities for half-and-half of the street lights. >> not at all. i think one of the things people have said before pg&e level try to streamline on the process nate's that's not true. and then to look at the idea of having a single person. the idea of a single owner provides the best service.
so based on any process improvement it's an ownership issue. we recognize that and we're happy to look at the format to industrial the process. to that point one of the things we've talked about the opportunity to take a look at the puc where they own a majority of the street lights and can we find a way for the puc to acquire 5 percent of the lights in district 3 that gives into parties a chance to a address the issues there. those generally aren't the up front capital fund. those are the things i've discussions with the puc general manager on and we'll be discussing >> i understand that recently pg&e soiled it's street lights is in the city of richmond is it true. >> right. >> then richmond became the
sole provider. >> it's the same issue if a city believes they can provide a better serve we're happy to have a discussion. we haven't gotten a great deal even if information but from our standpoint we have an obligation to get the costs but we don't intend to profit at all. we're happy to have that discussion >> can you comment on discussed before the puc the need or importance of moving towards integrating lighting and comment where pummeling is towards the. >> one of the difficulties is most the lights we own are on wooden poles beyond street
lights. those are distributions powell's poles our people have to climb so on the distribution of the policies there can be no impediments so that precludes a second light. we've contacted the staff about solutions of led lights are are focused back to the pedestrian areas. those are special facilities are don't believe they're more expensive than a street light installation but we're only to find solutions for the pedestrian lighting. i respect the pole access. for us we provide street light services as a service to the city in changing the lights that needs to be done at the request of the city.
so we get the containment and do the work. to the extent there's funding we're more happy to do that so long as they set the rules that the puc has created for us >> has b there been discussions with the puc trying to balance the need for access on those multiple use wooden poles that pg&e has with the upgrade of lighting that's an issue. >> we're trying to find a way to balance the requests. 70 thousand square miles long most of our other customers and perhaps in more rural areas are less willing to take on
imcredential costs. our customers don't want to make that kind of investment in the infrastructure >> supervisor jane kim. >> by the way, thank you for addressing some of my questions. i wanted to make sure i didn't have the presentation in front of me but the remittance for pg&e would have the capital cost improvements for over 5 years >> those increases are the improvements now but the cost of the service in san francisco. one of the things we pointed out in our earlier slides san francisco is very, very expensive to serve to look at the lights in the golden - those
folks expect those services as well as the fact we just have many kinds of different lights in san francisco. much more complex the money is going to improvements locally it's not just the rp program it's also the existing program of other equipment in san francisco >> one of my questions is since we're paying over time are you going to be advanced fronting so the bulk happens on the front end and we'll be paying you back over time. >> it's hard to describe it like that. we make investments across the city in regards to the funding for example, a $2,000 increase
didn't mean we're going to do more improvements we're going to do $8 million of improvement that's 12 years of rate increases in one year so so what's happening is per diem is hoping to make that commitment at some point >> then my second question do i need a history of the loops. >> i did not. like you said a majority of those are are on the west side as we reply replace those we're ordering those in a different way. inching we came in and said which lights are out more frequently. after yourself and supervisor campos we recognize that an outage in one area is not equal to an out angle in another area.
we wanted to cover the boarder benefits that exist to try to reflect the commitments to be responsive to operational needs >> this goes back to light light and district 6 has a lot of business improvement district. so when the cb ded put in their own lighting they don't budget that additional cost to maintain the lights within their own budget this is something that gets carried over by p&g and those power >> those light are i'm not sure one hundred percent so maybe i want to come up. >> they're the responsibility of sf puc though. >> i think so.
>> i am trying to understand. >> we're talking about the existing lights it maybe come to the those lights need to be replaced. there's cobra lights if the world were all cobra lights the cost would be lower but for speciality lights lib china town south of market street like the lights on the gold triangle there is more expenses >> maybe the first time or for maintaining it it comes from pg&e. >> that's correct. >> but the b.i.d. lights are funded by the b i did. >> not the lolts but before
they were established. >> and last question is the last slide the. >> current opportunity or current challenges. >> this is around using our system and the delays. >> oh, got it. >> the length. >> there you go. >> the legion system so that's our 311 system. >> right so per diem has their own system. what kari's staff does with is we close a light for legion arrest we have data we think the best data is reflect our employees that work on our system. legion is a third party check but when it's not reflects of reflective it casts a diagramer performance >> and legion is down a lot.
>> legion has been down 3 times in the loose three weeks. >> it's been down 3 times. sometimes, you know, 4 hours or more so it has compacted our ability to get do the system. that's a manual process like someone has to go in and do the work as opposed to the pg&e system as soon as they're done there's an automatic closer and my staff checks the quality and there's a gap in between >> and you give that - >> we e-mail the contact we have that he puc. >> that system is rub by 311 correct. >> yes. >> i'd love to see that data in terms of the number of temps times in the past year it's been
down. i agree 311 is one of our most important systems and it's troubling if not just in the last couple of weeks it's down regularly >> no problem. >> and since that's our discussion of puc staff they've been fantastic but they do exist and we should acknowledge them they're not impediments to our city but we need to fix them and finally, we have a number of opportunities about the lights to work to align ownership we're happy to have a discussion to discuss the next steps on those kinds of things. in their opinion working on those issues this is one of the
most important things to align ownership for one party being the owner and recognize the city to own the light but in district 2, 3 and 6 we can meaning fully impact the costs to the city >>. additionally we're working in our regulatory case at the puc to provide options to move to led lighting. the lighting lighting in san francisco is unique because we traditionally recover savings on the energy side as well as the operational side because even though it's owned and operated by pg&e it's harder for us to recover the costs. we're working to identify the facility charge for us to
recover those costs and moved in the led program. in addition we're looking at creating pilots not neighborhood of san francisco to have remote control in this hill we talked about before. as we work to replace the lights with the puc staff to make sure we're pitting in the right kind of lights when we replace a loop we have a meeting to discuss the scope of the work and identify any concerns they have. so with that if you have any questions, we'll be happy to answer them. and thank you very much >> supervisor kim. i didn't see the breakdown of pummeling and puc in district 6 it just says treasure island but if you know the answer
>> i may be corrected but i believe it's 98 percent city and two percent puc according to the slide. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you very much. okay. at this point we will begin public comment. i have 3 public comment cards if anyone else wants to make a public comment open item one fill out a card public comment will be 2 minutes >> thank you supervisors for this hearing and supervisor weiner for your ongoing interest on having the hearing. i've watched my schaffer in person and on sfgovtv and i've never felt like i'm in a parallel universe.
obviously it's a mess operationally with responsibility of ownership issues and financing. there's some plans and hopefully thoughts but i didn't hear a lot of concrete stuff. i'll share with you the experience of my neighborhood i'm the chair of the neighborhood midgets we represent about 45 hundred households around bonding invest park and pg&e is responsible for our lights. it used to take, in the morning two or three business days for pg&e to come out and fix a light. today, it's 15 to thirty days in exchange any statistics you've heard today. the dialyses and the communicate
between 3i6 and pg&e in my experience is non-exist. 311 can't telling tell you where pummeling is on. mr. smith to me personally has been polite but i shaunt shouldn't have to call a pg&e representative to get a street light fixed. there's been a lot of fingerpointing. its dangerous residential burglars and public safety is all been mentioned. there's a lot of work to do here thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please good afternoon. supervisors. i'm angie i'm chair of the advisors board of the action group. we serve t